In Moscow, the Iranians made a proposal that included agreeing to halt uranium enrichment to 20 percent U-23, the isotope that gives uranium its explosive power, and to a plan to “operationalize” the Supreme Leader’s fatwa against nuclear weapons. This would be in exchange for easing economic sanctions, Iranian inclusion in talks on key regional issues like Syria and Bahrain, and international recognition for Iran’s right to have a peaceful nuclear program.

According to officials speaking with Al Monitor, Washington was initially considering incremental steps toward settlement. Any individual concession the Iranians agreed to would be met with reciprocal concessions and benefits.

In the third round of talks in Moscow, however, that changed. Now the West was demanding that Iran meet all three conditions in their proposal: stop 20% enrichment, ship out a stockpile of more than 100 kilograms of 20%-enriched uranium and close the Fordo site, a fortified enrichment facility built into a mountain.

The US refusal to make incremental progress in these talks with Iran indicates a lack of interest in true settlement.

Still, the sanctions and then negotiations were imposed on Iran. But the so-called diplomacy with Iran has been “predicated on intimidation, illegal threats of military action, unilateral ‘crippling’ sanctions, sabotage, and extrajudicial killings of Iran’s brightest minds,” writes Reza Nasri at PBS Frontline’s Tehran Bureau. These postures have spoiled the chance to resolve this issue promptly and respectfully.

After the failed talks in 2009 and 2010, wherein Obama ended up rejecting the very deal he demanded the Iranians accept, as Harvard professor Stephen Walt has written, the Iranian leadership “has good grounds for viewing Obama as inherently untrustworthy.” Former CIA analyst Paul Pillar has concurred, arguing that Iran has “ample reason” to believe, “ultimately the main Western interest is in regime change.”

Since the peaceful nature of Iran’s current nuclear program is so widely accepted, the only real gripe people have is that Tehran is slightly too opaque on the issue (this, despite all declared enrichment sites being subject to international inspections and having 24-hour video surveillance). Any opaqueness Iran has demonstrated, along with its emphasis on being “nuclear capable,” is merely a defensive posture from a regime that fears US or Israeli aggression.

But there is a simple solution to this which would vastly decrease the geopolitical tensions in the region, yet is seen as out of the question by the US. If Israel, Iran’s main adversary and not a NPT signatory, agreed to dismantling its vast stockpiles of nuclear weapons and to a deal enforcing a nuclear weapons-free zone in the Middle East – a deal Iran has repeatedly proposed – Iran’s defensive posture would probably expire, along with the whole dispute about its nuclear program.

While almost half, if not more of the US democratic party supportive of the Iranians diplomacy regarding Syria and other Middle East issues, what others are doing is supporting their militarism agendas with Hillary Clinton on top wanting for anyone and everyone in this world yo be changed, which in reality shows the fact that the US democratic party is divided then ever before, it shows that this is the last chance for the democrat liberals to speak up against those who have chosen the path of Hillary Clinton and those whom are hired by her to do the same old same old as Madeline Albright done. Look, democracy is not about wars, it was before when US was fresh and stupid, people don’t want wars any more and sick and tired of all the junks, the killings, losing their sister and brothers in wars and etc. because of people like Hillary. If you are diplomat, then you act as one by being diplomatic, you don’t lie and you don’t support terrorism and you just go around wanting to change things because you say so, those days are over Hillary Clinton.

sherban

Who reads even only the stuff published by official press from US and Israel easily understand that Iran has not a military nuclear weapon because the demands of P5+1 are for steps which Iran should in the future,nothing is presented by the P5 which show that Iran already done something steps in getting nuclear weapon.Nevertheless Iran suffers 5 rounds of sanctions.Of course remained the Parcin mistery where "free world western civilizations"see an activity to hide something.This remind how part of neocons, after nothing was found in Iraq,explained why:"all nuclear weapon was transfered in Syria".I wonder how "the free world" don't claim the necessity to come in Syria to continue the search after Saddam nuclear weapon.

Farad

Why is U.S. so adamant against Iran having any nuclear program? We hear every day in the news that Iran is making a nuclear bomb and that is why the world (at least the western world) is trying endlessly to stop them. But is this in fact true? Based on all assessments from U.S. and other intelligences agencies Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program. Also, the religious leader of Iran and many other religious scholars have denounced nuclear weapons as inhuman. If Iran is not making a nuclear weapon, then why the U.S. government is so publicly demanding that Iran proves itself innocent, otherwise it remains guilty? It clearly is not about nuclear weapons but actually about nuclear energy. Currently, Iran relies on hydroelectric and fossil fuel for the source of energy for electricity production. If Iran can produce cheap nuclear energy and sell the fossil fuel for income, which would certainly help the ailing economy. More importantly, cheap energy has historically been the driving force for industrial development. Without cheap and abundant energy, there is no conducive environment of internal human talents to build on their entrepreneurial spirit to start new industrial ventures. Iran, in recent years, has made great strides in industrial development and has increased its export of many different products to neighboring countries. These include both military and civilian goods. The U.S. and western countries have always enjoyed an easy and lucrative market in the Middle East, but today with all the upheavals and revelations of the Arab spring, the winds of change can be easily felt. It is clear that U.S. and the other western countries are just trying to protect their profits and interest in the Middle East and they obviously know that there is no ongoing nuclear weapons program in Iran.

curmudgeonvt

"…indicates a lack of interest in true settlement…"

I'm sorry…I thought that was pretty obvious.

peter vojta

Israels arsenal of undeclared, unchecked WMD is the problem in ME. Treat represented by ongoing policy of conflicts, assasinations and wars of aggression marks "israels regime" most dangeres time in history of mankind. Even if Russia, China and Iran can chalenge and slow down this "fanatical etnocratic regime", "mad dog" /how israels leaders describe themself/ remains "losse". If HUMANITY fails to control and lock this arrogant and murderous regime….WW3 may come very soon…